Commentary on the opposition between Parisian and Provincial boosellers (1690s)

Frédéric Rideau

Faculty of Law, University of Poitiers, France

Please cite as:

Rideau, F. (2019) ‘Commentary on the memorandum on the dispute which has arisen between the booksellers of Paris and those of Lyon (1690s)', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

1. Full title

2. Abstract

3. References

1. Full title

Memorandum on the dispute which has arisen between the booksellers of Paris and those of Lyon, regarding the privileges and extensions of these which the King grants for the printing of books

2. Abstract

Following the serious weakening of the public domain entailed by the royal decrees and regulations of 1665 and 1686, this memorandum was one of the first examples, if not the first, from the Parisian booksellers to describe the right of exploitation safeguarded by privileges in terms of private property. In this perspective, it certainly anticipated in some respects the 1725 famous plea of the Parisian guild by Louis d’Héricourt, since book trade privileges became explicitly regarded essentially as a legitimate means to secure the personal labour of authors and booksellers contractually invested in the publication of a literary work. The commentary describes the background to this mémoire, at a crucial time – the second half of the seventeenth century – when “modern” liberal ideas developed under the Louis XIV absolute monarchy, and the consecutive rhetorical precautions, not to say equivocations or contradictions, as to the type of labours supposed to justify, or even transform, book trade privileges. .

3. References

full commentary available online March 2019

Commentary on:Memorandum on the dispute between the Parisian and the provincial booksellers (1690s)

Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.